How do you solve the skills paradox?

[tedcahill2]

So I'm thinking of running a campaign with some new house rules. I want leveling up to feel important no matter what class you take or what level it is (so basically make every level count, even those that earn no new/improved class features).

First, will use point buy with 28 points to create characters. Each time you level up you will get one stat point. Unlike the point earned every 4 levels the point you earn each level is used to purchase abilities using the same method as point buy. So someone could immediate raise an 11 to a 12 at level 2, but they could not raise a 15 to a 16. This would be in place of the point earned every 4 levels.

Second, every character get a feat every level. There are so many feats in the game, and they are far from over powering. Additional, the core fighter class will not be allowed available to play.

Third, spell power will be a feature of each class, just like saving throws and base attack. In summary spell power affects all level dependent parts of a spell, such as duration and damage. Core casters will have a high spell power, "half-casters" like paladins and rangers will get +1 spell power per 2 levels, and none casters will still have +1 spell power per 4 levels. Spell power does not affect spells known or spells per day, just the level dependent parts (i.e. a wiz5/ftr4 would have a spell power of 6, 5 from wiz 1 form ftr, and would thus have a 6d6 fireball).

Fourth, I want to do something about skills. Has anyone figured out what to do about the skills paradox? (I'm probably the only one calling it this)

The skills paradox is rooted in the times 4 skill points at level one. It seems logical, until you consider this. A rog1/wiz1, assuming no int bonus, has 34 skill points (32 from the rogue at level 1 and 2 more from the wizard at level 2), a wiz1/rog1 has only 16 skill points (8 from wizard at level 1 and 8 from rogue at level 2). I can't logic this away.

Thoughts?

[Deophaun]

Just use Pathfinder's system: You get no extra skillpoints at 1st level. Instead, you get a +3 bonus to class skills you have at least one rank in. (Among other changes)

[tedcahill2]

Just use Pathfinder's system: You get no extra skillpoints at 1st level. Instead, you get a +3 bonus to class skills you have at least one rank in. (Among other changes)

I'm very close to doing just that. I came here to see if anyone has an alternative.

[Deophaun]

If you want an alternative, award first level skill points retroactively. When you start out with a class that gives 2+Int, you get (2+Int)x4. Then, if you later take a class that gives you 6+Int, you gain 2+Int+(4x4) (parenthesis for clarity) the first time you take it. If you then take a class that gives you 4+Int, you just get 4+Int. If you later again take something that gives you 8+Int, you now gain 6+Int+2x4 that first level.

More complicated to explain, but doesn't require as many changes to the system.

[Alent]

Hmm, some thoughts from a fellow game retinkerer:


Second, every character get a feat every level. There are so many feats in the game, and they are far from over powering. Additional, the core fighter class will not be allowed available to play.

I would raise the question of "why?" For many this has little effect, but for some builds this makes insane characters even more insane and for [twf/oth]ers it's like manna from heaven. Feats are very much a multiplier of class features, this risks drastically supercharging some classes. (CoDzilla)

Oh, and I banned Core fighter from my table, too, no complaints there.


Third, spell power will be a feature of each class, just like saving throws and base attack. In summary spell power affects all level dependent parts of a spell, such as duration and damage. Core casters will have a high spell power, "half-casters" like paladins and rangers will get +1 spell power per 2 levels, and none casters will still have +1 spell power per 4 levels. Spell power does not affect spells known or spells per day, just the level dependent parts (i.e. a wiz5/ftr4 would have a spell power of 6, 5 from wiz 1 form ftr, and would thus have a 6d6 fireball).

I'm not sure why you're tweaking CL this way. This doesn't really affect anyone unless you're also applying this "spell power" to items.


Fourth, I want to do something about skills. Has anyone figured out what to do about the skills paradox? (I'm probably the only one calling it this)

The skills paradox is rooted in the times 4 skill points at level one. It seems logical, until you consider this. A rog1/wiz1, assuming no int bonus, has 34 skill points (32 from the rogue at level 1 and 2 more from the wizard at level 2), a wiz1/rog1 has only 16 skill points (8 from wizard at level 1 and 8 from rogue at level 2). I can't logic this away.

Thoughts?

I start my games at level 3, so people dipping high skill characters just take that level first with my blessing and a hint hint nudge nudge. If you're extremely concerned about it, you could probably just award the difference at 2nd level, call it an "early career skills bonus". This isn't exactly a common situation since most classes have peanuts for skills.

[RedWarlock]

Yeah, it's not really a 'skill paradox' when you consider what they are meant to represent, their background and training from early life.

A wiz1/rog1 is someone who trained for their whole early life in wizardry, so they have extra skill points going towards spellcraft, knowledge, etc, and then only later learned a bit of roguery, a bit of stealth, etc.

Meanwhile, a rog1/wiz1 is someone who trained for years in thievery, learning all kinds of stealth, sleight of hand, and social skills, and then decided to add a bit of magic on top. They'll take a while to get their arcane skills up to snuff, but they've got the stealthy stuff on point.

[OldTrees1]

Wiz 1 / Rog 1 can easily reach 5 ranks in Rogue skills but only gets 16+5*Int skill points
Rog 1 / Wiz 1 cannot easily reach 5 ranks in Rogue skills but gets 34+5*Int skill points

This is much more evident with Wiz 4 / Rog 1 vs Rog 1 / Wiz 4.

Wiz 4 / Rog 1 pays 8 skill points to get 8 ranks in Search* but only gets 22+8*Int skill points
Rog 1 / Wiz 4 pays 12 skill points to get 8 ranks in Search* but gets 40+8*Int skill points
*Replace with Rogue class skill of choice



Would you please, with the whole situation highlighted, describe what aspects of this you want removed/changed? The x4 skill points at 1st level and the maximum ranks as a function of level cause benefits and drawbacks to either order.

[tedcahill2]

Hmm, some thoughts from a fellow game retinkerer:

I would raise the question of "why?" For many this has little effect, but for some builds this makes insane characters even more insane and for [twf/oth]ers it's like manna from heaven. Feats are very much a multiplier of class features, this risks drastically supercharging some classes. (CoDzilla)

Oh, and I banned Core fighter from my table, too, no complaints there.
Can you possibly elaborate on what kind of super charging could happen? Maybe I'm missing something. Ultimately my thought is start my game with point buy, 25 or 28 points. While that may be pretty standard for a point buy system that's significantly less powerful than my group generally plays (we're a 4d6 reroll ones, drop low die, kind of group). So the extra feats would be, at least slightly, offset by the lower ability scores. Additional, most classes just don't get enough feats to do anything fun. I want them to have enough to build their core skill set with enough left over to dabble in some niche feats.


I'm not sure why you're tweaking CL this way. This doesn't really affect anyone unless you're also applying this "spell power" to items. Caster level is class specific. Not that there's a good reason for this combination, but if I'm a wiz3/sorc3 I cast wizard spells with a CL of 3 and sorcerer spells with a caster level of 3. It's the same school of magic! Even though I'd have the spells known/spells per day of a wiz3/sorc3, under my system, I would cast them with an arcane spell power (i.e. CL) of 6. *I forgot to mention that each class has spell power of either arcane or divine, with some non-casters having neutral spell power. So you can't mix arcane and divine classes as easily. The idea was to promote some multi-classing casters (who I think are most harshly affected by multi-classing).

[Grod_The_Giant]

Just use Pathfinder's system: You get no extra skillpoints at 1st level. Instead, you get a +3 bonus to class skills you have at least one rank in. (Among other changes)
I'm going to second this, with the added note that all skill prerequisites also need to be lowered by three. It does exactly what you want, with an added benefit of making it a bit easier to dabble. I guess you could also do a universal "the first skill point you invest in a skill grants you four ranks" rule; that would achieve an identical effect without needing to do any mental math when looking at PrCs and the like.

"Spell Power" is possibly a bad idea. With few exceptions here and there, caster level is most important for direct damage spells and least important for battlefield control and save-or-lose spells-- thus, you're weakening the weakest spells without significantly affecting the strongest. Although I'm not sure how it differs from normal caster level, except that I guess it would make multiclassing a bit easier? Except that the issue there was spell level access, not caster level, so... <shrug>

[GilesTheCleric]

Just an fyi, in 3.0, spellpower increased both CL and DC. It was quickly discontinued when the designers realized it was overpowered.

[Alent]

Can you possibly elaborate on what kind of super charging could happen? Maybe I'm missing something. Ultimately my thought is start my game with point buy, 25 or 28 points. While that may be pretty standard for a point buy system that's significantly less powerful than my group generally plays (we're a 4d6 reroll ones, drop low die, kind of group). So the extra feats would be, at least slightly, offset by the lower ability scores. Additional, most classes just don't get enough feats to do anything fun. I want them to have enough to build their core skill set with enough left over to dabble in some niche feats.

Honestly, the severity does depend on how many sources you make open and how good your players are at stacking things.

The "worst case" my mind goes to is a Druid being able to optimize that point buy assuming all his time will be spent in Wildshape, picking up natural spell at the earliest opportunity, grabbing Frozen Wildshape and assume supernatural ability somewhere along the line, amplifying his animal companion and getting the summoning feats, getting all his metamagic feats, and having room for reserve magic feats with room for plenty of Shape soulmeld and Martial Study on top. (In effect, it would make it more likely to "accidentally" make a TO character.)

If your group isn't inclined to build that kind of character, or doesn't use that many sources, the warning may just be hypothetical, but I'd still keep it in mind.


Caster level is class specific. Not that there's a good reason for this combination, but if I'm a wiz3/sorc3 I cast wizard spells with a CL of 3 and sorcerer spells with a caster level of 3. It's the same school of magic! Even though I'd have the spells known/spells per day of a wiz3/sorc3, under my system, I would cast them with an arcane spell power (i.e. CL) of 6. *I forgot to mention that each class has spell power of either arcane or divine, with some non-casters having neutral spell power. So you can't mix arcane and divine classes as easily. The idea was to promote some multi-classing casters (who I think are most harshly affected by multi-classing).

So you're trying to do something akin to what ToB initiators get (IL equal to initiator classes + (non initiator classes/2)), but for casters? It's an interesting idea, but it seems like there are PrCs for the concepts where these kinds of cross-classings make sense, and feats to help take the edge off of missed caster levels. I'm also not sure it makes practical sense, as many arcane and divine casters have different power sources. (Wizards being learning based, sorcerers being genetics, etc.)

That said, I'm always concerned about magic upsetting the balance of the game on account of having actually fielded a diminutive form of the druid I mentioned above, and I also usually play a "Fixer" bard where I smooth over any/all holes the party has, so I look at things that improve caster life as highly suspect.

[Coidzor]

"Spell Power" is possibly a bad idea. With few exceptions here and there, caster level is most important for direct damage spells and least important for battlefield control and save-or-lose spells-- thus, you're weakening the weakest spells without significantly affecting the strongest. Although I'm not sure how it differs from normal caster level, except that I guess it would make multiclassing a bit easier? Except that the issue there was spell level access, not caster level, so... <shrug>

Well, the caster level of Rangers and Paladins is already half their levels in the class, so "spell power" = their base caster level. If fullcasters and bards and the like all get 1 "spell power" per level the same way they get 1 caster level, then there's no effective change.

No sane gish would dump 4 levels into Fighter or any other classes that don't increase their spellcasting by 1 level, though, so it doesn't even mitigate the ding to caster level that dipping into Fighter 1 to qualify for gish PrCs or being a Sorcadin entails.

I suppose a gish that takes all 10 levels of Swiftblade would have more "spell power" than they would caster levels? Assuming that Swiftblade, being a casting PrC with better than half-progression, would granted 1 spell power per level despite not giving additional levels of spellcasting at every level.


So you're trying to do something akin to what ToB initiators get (IL equal to initiator classes + (non initiator classes/2)), but for casters? It's an interesting idea, but it seems like there are PrCs for the concepts where these kinds of cross-classings make sense, and feats to help take the edge off of missed caster levels. I'm also not sure it makes practical sense, as many arcane and divine casters have different power sources. (Wizards being learning based, sorcerers being genetics, etc.)

That said, I'm always concerned about magic upsetting the balance of the game on account of having actually fielded a diminutive form of the druid I mentioned above, and I also usually play a "Fixer" bard where I smooth over any/all holes the party has, so I look at things that improve caster life as highly suspect.

Being a Theurge is painful enough with the delayed access to the relevant level of spells, so at least throwing out a semi-relevant 2nd level spell when one should be throwing out 3rd level spells and about to get 4th level spells would make it less painful and save two Practiced Spellcaster feats.

Most theurges have some measure of veneer of an explanation for melding the two power sources.

It's ultimately not going to accomplish much, though, since it only helps out spellcasters who deliberately choose to gimp themselves.